REM 2018 BAR Q With Personal Answer

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 13

JUSTICE MARIANO C.

DEL CASTILLO
Chairperson
2018 Bar Examinations

Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against
Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle's property, which is located in Digos
City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was
Danielle's certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty.
Dane Danoza, a notary public.

(a) Was there a need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for


prior barangay conciliation before the court can take cognizance of the case? (2.5%)

No, there was no need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for prior barangay
conciliation before the court can take cognizance of the case.

Under the Local Government Code, there is no need to refer the case to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa where the parties are not residents of the same city or municipality.

Here, Danielle is a resident of Milan whereas Dan is a resident of Brgy. Daliao, Davao City.

Hence, there was no need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for prior barangay
conciliation.

(b) Was the action properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City? (2.5%)

No, the action was not properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City.

Under the Rules for Ejectment, jurisdiction is vested in the MTC where the property subject of
the ejectment case is located.
Here, the property of Danielle subject to the ejectment case is located in Digos City, Davao Del
Sur. Hence, the ejectment case should have been instituted before the MTC of Digos City.

Hence, the action was not properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City.

(c) Should the complaint be verified or is the certification sufficient? (2.5%)

The complaint should be verified and the certification is not sufficient.

Under the Rules on Ejectment, the petition is required to be verified. A mere certification is not
sufficient.

II

Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning collectively 25% of Darwinkle Inc., filed an
action before the RTC of Makati to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to hold the annual
stockholders' meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by Darwinkle Inc. 's By-Laws, with
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction to use as record date April 30, 2017. The complaint
alleged, among others, that the refusal to call the ASM on June 21, 2017 was rooted in the plan
of the BOD to allow Databank Inc. (which would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July
15, 2017) to participate in the ASM to effectively dilute the complainants' shareholdings and
ease them out of the BOD. Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount of PhP 7 ,565 as filing
fees based on the assessment of the Clerk of Court. The BOD filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. They averred that the filing fees should have been based on the
actual value of the shares of Dendenees Inc. and David, which were collectively worth PhP 450
million.

If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss? (5%)

No, I would not grant the motion to dismiss.

JURISPRUDENCE.
III

On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucia, Sheriff of the RTC of Makati, served the Order granting
the ex-parte application for preliminary attachment of Dinggoy against Dodong. The Order,
together with the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March 1, 2018, the Sheriff served upon
Dodong the complaint and summons in connection with the same case. The counsel of Dodong
filed a motion to dissolve the writ.

(a) Can the preliminary attachment issued by the Court in favor of Dinggoy be
dissolved? What ground/s can Dodong's counsel invoke? (2.5%)

Yes, the preliminary attachment issued by the Court in favor of Dinggoy can be dissolved.

Under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, the order granting the ex-parte application for preliminary
attachment should be prior to or contemporaneous with the complaint and summons.

Here, the order granting the writ was served prior to the service of the complaint and summons
in connection with the same case.

(b) If Dodong posts a counter bond, is he deemed to have waived any of his claims for
damages arising from the issuance of the Order and writ of attachment? (2.5%)

IV

Dick Dixson had sons with different women - (i) Dexter with longtime partner Delia and (ii)
Dongdong and Dingdong with his housemaid Divina. When Dick fell ill in 2014, he entrusted all
his property titles and shares of stock in various companies to Delia who, in turn, handed them
to Dexter for safekeeping. After the death of Dick, Dexter induced Dongdong and Dingdong to
sign an agreement and waiver of their right to Dick's estate in consideration of PhP 45 million.
As Dexter reneged on his promise to pay, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a complaint with the
RTC of Manila for annulment of the agreement and waiver. The summons and complaint were
received by Dalia, the housemaid of Dexter, on the day it was first served. Dexter filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila granted the motion
to dismiss.

Dongdong and Dingdong thereafter filed a new complaint against Dexter for annulment of the
agreement and waiver. Before Dexter could file his answer, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a
motion to withdraw their complaint praying that it be dismissed without prejudice. An Order was
issued granting the motion to withdraw without prejudice on the basis that the summons had not
yet been served on Dexter. Dexter filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal.
He argued that the dismissal should have been with prejudice under the "two-dismissal rule" of
Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, in view of the previous dismissal of the first case.

Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second dismissal with prejudice? (5%)

Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc. (Debra), Daniel, and Debbie in the RTC of
Manila for recovery of sum of money. The complaint alleged that, on October 14, 2017, Debra
obtained a loan from Dorton in the amount of PhP 10 million with interest of 9% per annum. The
loan was evidenced by a promissory note (PN) payable on demand signed by Daniel and
Debbie, the principal stockholders of Debra, who also executed a surety agreement binding
themselves as sureties. Copies of both the PN and the surety agreement were attached to the
complaint. Dorton further alleged that it made a final demand on March 1, 2018 for Debra and
the sureties to pay, but the demand was not heeded.

Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and raised the affirmative defense that, while the
PN and the surety agreement appeared to exist, Daniel and Debbie were uncertain whether the
signatures on the documents were theirs. The PN and the surety agreement were pre-marked
during pre-trial, identified but not authenticated during trial, and formally offered.

Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the surety agreement in rendering its decision?
(5%)

VI

Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against spouses Dake
and Donna Demapilis for unpaid purchases of construction materials in the sum of PhP
250,000. In their answer, spouses Demapilis admitted the purchases from Daribell, but alleged
that they could not remember the exact amount since no copies of the documents were
attached to the complaint. They nevertheless claimed that they made previous payments in the
amounts of PhP 110,000 and PhP 20,000 and that they were willing to pay the balance of their
indebtedness after account verification. In a written manifestation, spouses Demapilis stated
that, in order to buy peace, they were willing to pay the sum of PhP 250,000, but without
interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
Thereafter, Daribell filed an amended complaint, alleging that the total purchases of construction
materials were PhP 280,000 and only PhP 20,000 had been paid. Daribell also served upon the
spouses Demapilis a request for admission asking them to admit to the genuineness of the
statement of accounts, delivery receipts and invoices, as well as to the value of the principal
obligation and the amount paid as stated in the amended complaint.

Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The amendment modified the period covered
and confirmed the partial payment of PhP 110,000 but alleged that this payment was applied to
the spouses' other existing obligations. Daribell however reiterated that the principal amount
remained unchanged.

(a) Is the request for admission deemed abandoned or withdrawn by the filing of the
second amended complaint? (2.5%)

(b) Can the amendment of the complaint be allowed if it substantially alters the cause of
action? (2.5%)

(c) Can the facts subject of an unanswered request for admission be the basis of a
summary judgment? (2.5%)

VII

Dory Enterprises Inc. (Dory) leased to Digna Corporation (Digna) a parcel of land located in
Diliman, Quezon City. During the term of the lease, Digna was informed by DBS Banking
Corporation (DBS) that it had acquired the leased property from the former owner Dory, and
required Digna to pay the rentals directly to it. Digna promptly informed Dory of DBS' claim of
ownership. In response, Dory insisted on its right to collect rent on the leased property.
Due to conflicting claims of Dory and DBS over the rental payments, Digna filed a complaint for
interpleader in the RTC of Manila. Digna prayed that it be allowed to consign in court the
succeeding monthly rentals, and that Dory and DBS be required to litigate their conflicting
claims. It later appeared that an action for nullification of a dacion en pago was filed by Dory
against DBS in the RTC of Quezon City. In said case, Dory raised the issue as to which of the
two (2) corporations had a better right to the rental payments. Dory argued that, to avoid
conflicting decisions, the interpleader case must be dismissed.

Does the action for nullification of the dacion en pago bar the filing of the interpleader case?
(2.5%)

VIII

Spouses Dondon and Donna Dumdum owned a residential lot in Dapitan City. Doy Dogan
bought said lot and took possession thereof with the promise to pay the purchase price of PhP 2
million within a period of six (6) months. After receiving only PhP 500,000, spouses Dumdum
executed the deed of absolute sale and transferred the title to Doy Dogan. The balance was not
paid at all. Spouses Dumdum, through counsel, sent a demand letter to Doy Dogan for him to
pay the balance of PhP 1.5 million plus interest of PhP150,000. Doy Dogan responded in a
letter by saying that "while the remaining balance is admitted, the interest charged is excessive."
There being no payment, spouses Dumdum filed with the RTC of Dapitan City a complaint for
reconveyance with damages against Doy Dogan.

In his answer, Doy Dogan raised, by way of affirmative defense, that the purchase price had
been fully paid and for this reason the complaint should have been dismissed. Spouses
Dumdum then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was granted by the RTC of
Dapitan City. The Court awarded PhP1 .5 million actual damages representing the balance of
the purchase price, PhP 200,000 as moral damages, PhP 200,000 as exemplary damages, PhP
90,000 as interest, PhP 50,000 as attorney's fees, and PhP 5,000 as cost of suit.

Was it proper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings?
(2.5%)

IX
In 2015, Dempsey purchased from Daria a parcel of land located in Dumaguete, Negros
Oriental. The latter executed a deed of absolute sale and handed to Dempsey the owner's
duplicate copy of TCT No. 777 covering the property. Since he was working in Manila and still
had to raise funds to cover taxes, registration and transfer costs, Dempsey kept the TCT in his
possession without having transferred it to his name. A few years thereafter, when he already
had the funds to pay for the transfer costs, Dempsey went to the Register of Deeds of
Dumaguete and discovered that, after the sale, Daria had filed a petition for reconstitution of the
owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 777 which the RTC granted. Thus, unknown to Dempsey,
Daria was able to secure a new TCT in her name.

What is Dempsey's remedy to have the reconstituted title in the name of Daria nullified? (5%)

In a buy-bust operation, 30 kilos of shabu were seized from Dave and Daryll. They were
arrested and placed on inquest before Prosecutor Danilo Doon who ordered their continued
detention. Thereafter, the information for the sale and distribution of shabu was filed in court.
When arraigned, Dave and Daryll pleaded not guilty to the charge. During pre-trial, counsel for
both of the accused raised, for the first time, the illegality of the arrest. The case proceeded to
trial. After trial, the court scheduled the promulgation of judgment with notice to both the
accused and their counsel, Atty. Dimayuga. During the promulgation, only Dave and Atty.
Dimayuga were present. Both the accused were convicted of the crime charged.

(a) Was the challenge to the validity of the arrest timely raised? (2.5%)

(b) What is the remedy available to Daryll, if any, to be able to file an appeal? (2.5%)

XI

In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the
Supreme Court (Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was
announced, several groups questioned his qualification to the position on the ground that he
was not a natural born Filipino citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining
him from accepting the appointment or assuming the position and discharging the functions of
his office until he is able to successfully complete all the necessary steps to show that he is a
natural born citizen of the Philippines. However, he continued to exercise his functions as CA
Justice.

Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a
practicing lawyer, asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through a verified request, to
initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the latter's capacity as incumbent CA
Justice. The OSG refused to initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong's
citizenship was still being litigated in another case.

When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition
for certiorari against the OSG and certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong. The petition
for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion when it
deferred the filing of a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition
for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the Court to order him to cease and desist
from further exercising his powers, duties and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances,
Atty. Dacio relied on the fact that, at the lime of J. Dong's appointment as CA Justice, his birth
certificate indicated that he was a Chinese citizen and his bar records showed that he was a
naturalized Filipino citizen.

(a) May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari, to initiate a quo


warranto proceeding against J. Dong? (2.5%)

(b) Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality to initiate the action for certiorari and
prohibition against J. Dong? (2.5%)

XII

Dodo was knocked unconscious in a fist fight with Dindo. He was rushed to the emergency
room of the Medical City where he was examined and treated by Dr. Datu. As he was being
examined, a plastic sachet appearing to contain shabu fell from Dodo's jacket which was on a
chair beside him. Dodo was thus arrested by the same policemen who assisted him to the
hospital. At Dodo's trial, the public prosecutor called Dr. Datu to the witness stand. When the
public prosecutor asked Or. Datu as to what he saw in the emergency room, Dodo's counsel
objected, claiming doctor-patient privilege rule.

How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)


XIII

Denny is on trial for homicide. The prosecution calls Danilo, a police officer, who interviewed the
victim, Drew, shortly after the shooting. Danila's testimony is being offered by the prosecution
for purposes of proving that (i) Drew is now dead; (ii) while in the emergency room, Drew was
posting his medical condition on Facebook and was "liking" the posts of his Facebook friends;
(iii) Drew asked the nurse for water but was refused because he was bleeding, which
subsequently angered Drew; and (iv) that before dying, Drew signed a statement in which he
identified Denny as the shooter.

Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible? (2.5%)

XIV

Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law student who sidelines as a call center agent.
Dave offers the testimony of Danny, who says that Dave is known in the community as a decent
and discerning person. The prosecution presents a rebuttal witness, Dovie, who testifies that, if
Dave was reputed to be a good person, that reputation was a misperception because Dave had
been previously convicted of homicide.

Is Dovie's testimony admissible as to the character of Dave? (2.5%)

XV

Atty. Dalmacio, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for a search warrant
before the Executive Judge of RTC Manila. He alleged in his application that a certain alias
Django was keeping about 10 kilos of shabu in a wooden cabinet located at Dillian's Store in
Paseo de Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The Executive Judge of Manila personally examined Atty.
Dalmacio and his witnesses and thereafter issued the search warrant particularly describing the
place to be

searched and the items to be seized.

(a) Can the search warrant issued by the Executive Judge of Manila be enforced in
Laguna? (2.5%)
(b) Can the legal concept of "venue is jurisdictional" be validly raised in applications for
search warrants? (2.5%)

XVI

Danjo, a stay-in gardener at the Dy family home in Quezon City, applied for overseas
employment in Riyadh as a flower arranger. After he left for abroad, Dino Dy, head of the family,
discovered that all his wristwatches were missing. Dino followed Danjo's lnstagram account and
in one instance saw Danjo wearing his Rolex watch. He filed a complaint for qualified theft
against Danjo with the Office of the Prosecutor (OP), Quezon City. The subpoena with the
affidavit-complaint was served on Denden, Danjo's wife, at their house. No counter-affidavit was
filed by Danjo who continued to work in Riyadh. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the
OP found probable cause against Danjo and subsequently filed the information for qualified theft
before the RTC of Quezon City. The court likewise found probable cause and issued in 2016 a
warrant for Danjo's arrest.

Danjo was repatriated to the Philippines in 2018. While Danjo was lurking outside the Dys'
house, which was only about 100 meters away from the police station, SPO1 Dody recognized
Danjo. Realizing that the police station had a copy of Danjo's warrant of arrest, SPO1 Dody
immediately pursued and arrested Danjo.

(a) Was the warrant of arrest issued against Danjo who was not in the Philippines valid?
(2.5%)

(b) Can the warrant of arrest be served on Danjo upon his return? (2.5%)

XVII

Don Deles, a contractor, was sued together with Mayor Dante Dungo and Congressman Dal
Dilim for malversation of public funds before the Office of the Ombudsman. Danny Din, a
material witness of the complainant Diego Domingo, was hired as an engineer by a construction
company in Qatar, and had to depart in two (2) months. To perpetuate Danny Din's testimony,
Diego Domingo applied for his conditional examination before the Sandiganbayan.

Should the application for conditional examination of Danny Din be granted? (2.5%)
XVIII

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a complaint with the Sandiganbayan in
connection with the sequestered assets and properties of Demo Companies Inc. (Demo) and
impleaded its officers and directors. Since the complaint did not include Demo as defendant, the
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution where it ordered Demo to be impleaded. Thereafter, the
Republic filed an amended complaint naming Demo as additional defendant, which amendment
was later admitted.

Demo filed a motion for bill of particulars for the Republic to clarify certain matters in its
amended complaint. The Sandiganbayan immediately granted the motion. Upon submission of
the bill of particulars by the Republic, Demo filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the answers in
the bill of particulars were indefinite and deficient responses to the question of what the alleged
illegally acquired funds or properties of Demo were. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case.

(a) Was the Sandiganbayan correct in dismissing the case? (2.5%)

(b) What can the defendant, in a civil case, do in the event that his motion for bill of
particulars is denied? (2.5%)

XIX

Drylvik, a German national, married Dara, a Filipina, in Dusseldorf, Germany. When the
marriage collapsed, Dara filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of
Manila. Drylvik, on the other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from the German Family
Court. The decree, in essence, states:

The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx before the Civil Registrar of Dusseldorf is
hereby dissolved. The parental custody of the children Diktor and Daus is granted to the
father.

Drylvik filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila on the ground that the court no longer had
jurisdiction over the matter as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving his
marriage to Dara. Dara objected, saying that while she was not challenging the divorce decree,
the case in the RTC still had to proceed for the purpose of determining the issue of the
children's custody. Drylvik counters that the issue had been disposed of in the divorce decree,
thus constituting res judicata.

(a) Should Drylvik's motion to dismiss be granted? (2.5%)

(b) Is a foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse,
uncontested by both parties, sufficient by itself to cancel the entry in the civil registry
pertaining to the spouses' marriage? (2.5%)

XX

Dominic was appointed special administrator of the Estate of Dakota Dragon. Delton, husband
of Dakota, together with their five (5) children, opposed the appointment of Dominic claiming
that he (Dominic) was just a stepbrother of Dakota. After giving Dominic the chance to
comment, the court issued an Order affirming the appointment of Dominic.

(a) What is the remedy available to the oppositors? (2.5%)

(b) If there are no qualified heirs, can the government initiate escheat proceedings over
the assets of the deceased? To whom, in particular, shall the estate of the deceased go
and for whose benefit? (2.5%)

XXI

The municipality of Danao, Cebu was a quiet and peaceful town until a group of miners from
Denmark visited the area and discovered that it was rich in nickel. In partnership with the
municipal mayor, the Danish miners had to flatten 10 hectares of forest land by cutting all the
trees before starting their mining operations. The local DENR, together with the Samahan
Laban sa Sumisira sa Kalikasan, filed a petition for writ of kalikasan against the municipal
mayor and the Danish miners in the RTC of Cebu.

(a) Is the petition within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cebu? (2.5%)

(b) What is the Precautionary Principle? (2.5%)

XXII
Danica obtained a personal loan of PhP 180,000 from Dinggoy, payable in 18 equal monthly
installments of PhP 10,000 until fully paid. In order to complete her payment at an earlier date,
Danica instead paid PhP 20,000 monthly, and continued doing so until the 15th month, which
payments Dinggoy all accepted. Later on, she realized that she had overpaid Dinggoy by 100%
as she should have already completed payment in nine (9) months. She demanded the return of
the excess payment, but Dinggoy completely ignored her. Thus, Danica availed of the Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases by filing before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) a statement
of claim, together with the required documents.

Should the MTC proceed with the case under the: (i) Revised Rules Summary Procedure; (ii)
the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims; or (iii) the regular procedure for civil cases? (5%)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

You might also like